2 Friday, January 5, 1919 THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS Purely Commentary Hanuka and Christmas, Harmony and Ecumenism: The Jewish and the Christian Attitudes There is a 19-year cycle for Hanuka and Christmas to occur on corresponding dates, due to the leap years that occur on the Hebrew calendar which operates according to the lunar system. On the Hebrew calendar, leap years occur seven times in every 19-year cycle. Hanuka and Christmas coincided in this century, prior to 1978, in 1902, 1921, 1940 and 1958. It will cocur again in 1997. The 1978 experience was exceedingly intriguing. More than ever before, the Judeo-Christian community took note of the calendar harmony. The ecumenical spirit ran high. It was a time for exhilaration. Christians and Jews met to- gether, harmoniously, spiritually, with a sense of obliga- tion to make the human values workable. There were serious questions to contemplate. Was there an attempt to proselytize? Did amity predominate? Was there a begrudging of superiority, since the Hanuka observers are in such a minority, contrasted by the over- whelming Christian participation in the observances of ecumenism? Let it be recorded to the credit of the Christians who had a role in the dialogue that they were respectful, they expressed pride in sharing the historic experiences, in re- tracing the Maccabean glories commemorated on Hanuka. Jews who appreciated the dignity of such dialogues were equally joyful that two contrasting religious functions should be honored in a community spirit. Sadly, there were the injections of the escapees, of those seeking excuses for having failed in their identifica- tions as Jews. It was in this respect that, instead of giving emphasis to the holiday spirit with toleration for the views and devotions of each group sharing in a calendar identity, some resorted to peripheral interests. The mixing of the faiths, intermarriage, suddenly became a related matter injected into ecumenism. This was confusion rather than amity. It gave an opportunity to those who abandoned their heritage in a mixing of family processes to think in terms of the Christmas Tree as a linkage with the Menora. Often, in earlier years, there were those who chose to speak of a Hanuka Bush. It was an estrangement that was resented. There never was cause to combine the two, and in the 1978 experience of harmonious ecumenism the honora- ble in both factions, the Jewish and the Christian, did not confuse the ceremonial objects and the ceremonialism. The Tree is for Christians, the Menora for Jews and when the two were placed together they were as an expression of unity and fair play for all. The expression of escapism, limited as it may have been, was regrettable. Exemplary of an unnecessary lin- kage was an article in the New York Times by Anne Roiphe, an author of novels, whose article was entitled "Christmas Comes to a Jewish Home." This could not be judged as respectful to Jews who adhere to the claim that differences are tolerable and that a yielding to the majority religion is only for those who seek an escape from the Jewish past. Is Humanism, as viewed by the NYTimes writer, so demanding, that it calls for abandonment of a religious exclusiveness by Jews? Emphasis, in a series of incidents publicized in a fea- ture article in the Detroit News, could be viewed as notori- etSr . inspired by the appeasing attitude of the Humanist Rabbi. Since when does weakening of the Jewish right to retain its legacies equate with humanism? And to what extent is the concession to a reduction of Jewish identifica- tion go in the name of ecumenism? If that means a vanish- ing of the Jewish spiritual identity then it must be rejected. And there is sufficient conceit in the opposition to conces- sions to mixed marriages, imitations of Christian obser- vances and partial abandonment of loyalties to cause one to believe that the true ecumenist in Christian ranks will support the Jewish desire and aim to hold fast to faith rather than abandon the inherited principles. There is no doubt that the majority has an influence, and it is equally factual that mutual respect of one faith for another does not necessarily command submission by the lesser to the predominant. How is this to be avoided? Only by education, and there must be a recognition that if the minority will be self- respectful the majority will admire identifications and loyalties. , The 1978 experience was a good one. The majority of participants in the Hanuka-Christmas dialogues acted admirably. So did the knowledgeable Jews. When the de- featists, those who defect, introduced the negatives, the great experience was weakened. The Assimilationist Defection: A Challenging Definition An attempt at assimilation by Anne Roiphe in her article in the New York Times entitled "Christmas Comes to a Jewish Home," a piece that revealed what is generally When Assimilation Is Defiled and Self-Hate Causes ' Defections: Cynthia Ozick's Definition in Response to a Defection When Ecumenism Is Under Challenge interpreted as self-hate and a failure to achieve self-respect in dealing with Jewish spiritual-cultural legacies, has drawn protests and condemnations that filled several col- umns of a subsequent issue of the NYTimes. There is something heartening in the responses. They evidenced a recognition that knowledgeability is vital for Jews, that the proper education of Jewish children can obviate the atrociousness of the Roiphe approach to an effort at escapism from everything that is respectable in Jewish life. There is special interest in the challenge to the self- hating article in a response by Cynthia Ozick, the emi- nent novelist and short story writer. Miss Ozick wrote as an assimilationist with self- dignity, proving that one can be universally responsive without abandoning faith or a people's legacies. Miss Ozick's is a challenging defi- nition of assimilation that can be acceptable in dignity and in mutual respect among CYNTHIA OZICK all peoples, all faiths, who can tolerate the other fellow while not abandoning self. Miss Ozick wrote, in part, in response to Anne Roiphe: Like Anne Roiphe, I call myself an assimilated Jew. I have penetrated into the psychology and hypotheses of my surroundings. I am entitled to call myself assimilated because I share the legacy of Western literature, art, philosophy and history that everyone else similarly educated in schools and universities has inherited. When we speak of assimilation among amoebas, we mean that the larger substance swallows the smaller; the major- ity digests the minority. But when we speak of assimilation in culture, we need to raise a standard of reciprocity. I am glad to be an assimilationist — it is usually the consequence of an insatiable interest and re- sponsiveness to want to study the history and be- liefs of every intelligible society. Not to have a grasp of Christianity — and of Buddhism in all its varities, and of Islam in its varieties, and of all the other paths and expressions of religious aspira- tion that crowd, differentiate, thrilling color and amazingly speckle our all manifesting planet — not to know my neighbor's way, is in some fashion not to know myself, not to know what it is I willingly receive and what it is I willingly deny. But the corollary of this is that I, too, want to be known! I want my neighbors to assimilate my per- ceptions as I have assimilated theirs; I want them to know the real Hanuka of history, not the local parroting of December consumerism .. . I want the perplexed, the misled, the innocent among the Christian majority — my neighbors, my friends, my colleagues — to study history and learn their indebtedness to the Pharisees, a school of broadly liberal, ethical thinkers who were the source of Christianity's own portrait of itself. I want them to assimilate Judaism and not invite me to utter the unacceptable words "Old Testament" when I mean Torah. I want them to fathom why it is that Jewish tradition calls its people "the children of mercy." In short, I do not want to be like Anne Roiphe. Anne Roiphe is not an assimilated Jew, as I am; an assimilated Jew requests, as I do, an exchange of study and of knowledge. An assimilationist rec- oginizes the justice and plain daily decency of reciprocal learning. The reason Anne Roiphe cannot properly call herself an assimilated Jew is that she is unable to make such an exchange; she cannot sort out truth from misconception; she can only receive, but she cannot give .. . Perhaps it was well that Anne Roiphe should have written as she did. It provided a platform for the defen- ders of faith and inheritors of a great culture to offer interpretations that are necessary, especially in a sea- son of the year when differing faiths met to be meas- ured. For the measurements to be proper the discus- sion that developed should be welcomed. `Inevitable' Peace Accord and the Menacing 'Wreckers' `Inevitable," "Inerasable," "Unavoidable" and synonyms by the dozen are used to give assurance that the peace accord between Egypt and Israel eventually will be signed and made a reality. Meanwhile, there are obstacles, there is name-calling. Menahem Begin is called the villain and the Egyptian ruler is treated saintly. By Philip Slomovitz Who is at fault? What are the obstacles? Who threatens to wreck the accord reached at Camp David? A concerned American Jew has been placing adver- tisements at his own expense, calling attention to the injus- tices that were either practiced or plotted against Israel. S. Norman Gourse of New York has just addressed another appeal in Israel's behalf in a paid ad in the New York Times which he headed "Camp David Accord .— Who's The Wrecker?" in which he analyzed the existing situation and placed blame where it exists. Here is the text of his mes- sage: Both Democratic and Republican Party pia. forms always promised support for Israel as a staunch protector of American interests in the Mideast. Many times, before and after election, President Carter defined peace as more than a cessation of fighting, but rather genuine diploma- tic and economic relationships which would di- vert enormous expenditures for war into pro- grams to benefit horribly depressed masses. So the world applauded President, Carter as a moderator whose initiative and achievement created a framework for peace at Camp David. His terms were adhered to by Israel. Then he and the State Department decided to appease the Arab "rejectionists," including the PLO — to for- estall punishment by OPEC (a lesson in futility, witness the disaster of the huge oil-price hike —in displeasure over the peace negotiations!) Saudi Arabia • given priority to staying on good terms with Syria, Iraq, Libya — whose friendship is dubious. Remember how President Carter jus- tified the sale of F15 planes to Saudi? President Sadat was encouraged to demand unreasonable changes in the proposed treaty: 1) No exchange of Ambassadors with Israel (even after Israel has withdrawn from 70 percent of Sinai) until self-rule has been inaugurated in Gaza. 2) Review of the peace agreement in five years, after Israel has totally withdrawn from the Sinai. 3) The right to war against Israel anytime he rules that Israel is the aggressor against a third party with whom Egypt has a mutual defense pact. 4) An insistence upon conditions in the West Bank that would seriously undermine the secu- rity of Israel (actually a rehash of the discredited "Rogers" plan), Autonomy may take longer than "linkage" would permit. Accompanying the demands are plentiful signs of increased Arab military buildups (such as 50 F5E American jets that Saudi Arabia is to buy for Egypt). Weaponry is pouring into Arab coun- tries from all the major powers. Israel promised withdrawal from Sinai entirely — without a single new condition, whereas Sadat's distortions bear no resemblance to that which was promised at Camp David. Henry Kis- singer says no one is more dedicated to peace than Israel. Over 100 generals and admirals have af- firmed that we need a strong Israel to continue to defend our Mideast interests. Then why a U.S. policy of supporting a unilateral withdrawal that would weaken a loyal ally? Why support Egyptian blackmail conditions which dilute the nature and permanence of the Egyptian commitment to peace — and make the Jewish state vulnerable to a new war after surrendering key territory? Why permit a Sadat victory in creating a rift between U.S. and Israel? One "Munich" plunged the world into horn, tragedy; conscionable Americans cry out agaitt., a policy leading to another "Munich." The facts stated by Gourse are irrefutable. Will they be ignored, under the cloak of another hate campaign, engineered by Anwar Sadat against Menahem Begin? These surely are times for testing the sense of justice of the media and the diplomats. Peace NOW — Most Certainly, But With Honor and Justly Some months ago there was consternation over a letter by 36 prominent Jews — they were referred to as the intel- lectuals — advocating "Peace Now" as a pursuit by Israel. The approach by that group, at that time, was shocking to many. Now 33 of the 36 have addressed a protest to President Carter against the negations introduced in the quest for peace, and the one-sided approach to the issue by the President. One must never give up hope—sooner or later blunders are corrected. Even the most intellectual can commit er- rors. In this instance an error has been corrected. What a blessing — in time of need!